15 comments:

Anonymous
said...

How is that funny? It's just a bunch of tried stereotypes. At least the onepeat guys stick to truth supported by facts and results instead of libelous teenager humor. It goes to show that the LSU fans, as insecure as they are, are actually right. I'm surprised that a site I've come to enjoy as much as this one is so intent on defending USC when USC is indefensible.

"For the only time since the BCS was formed, there is a split national champion. LSU finishes atop the coaches' poll by beating Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl in a pairing of the top two teams in the BCS Standings. USC, ranked first in both polls on Bowl Selection Sunday, is left out of the BCS championship game when the Trojans finish third in the BCS standings. But USC wins the Associated Press' championship after beating Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Oklahoma, which spent the season as the top-ranked team in both polls, earns a spot in the Sugar Bowl by finishing first in the final BCS Standings even though the Sooners lose to Kansas State in the Big 12 championship game. LSU, the SEC champion, edges USC for second place in the final BCS Standings to advance to the Sugar Bowl."

This acknowledgement comes from the Bowl Championship Series and the university presidents, athletic directors and Division I-A conference coordinators who make up its governance board. The curious claim that LSU was the undisputed national champion in 2003 doesn't account for the BCS's response. They could have said, "Well we're the legitimate way of awarding the national title now. Sagarin gave USC the title in 2002 and that didn't change anything. We don't care what the AP says." But, they didn't. Why would the BCS to admit that 2003 was an utter failure for their system and that the season ended with a split championship? They would have loved to say, "Nope, sorry, that's not what everyone agreed to. We've got the signatures right here to prove it." Simply put, the idea that there was some collective agreement to invalidate the AP championship and make the BCS championship preeminent is a myth. If you don't win both the AP and the BCS (or Coaches’ before 1998) titles, then you are not the undisputed champion. Thus, we have the concept of a "split title." That is how it has worked for years and, since the NCAA has not sanctioned a particular title, no furtive agreement has magically wiped away the received, established, and de facto method of crowning the national champion. The BCS had hoped to eliminate split titles by factoring in the AP's rankings when matching teams in its title game, but in 2003 that didn't happen for either the AP or Coaches' polls, so the AP opted out (evidently they didn't get the memo about the "agreement"). We know it's not ideal but don't bitch at us, take it up with your local division I-A university president. The moral of the story is this: everyone who doesn't piss purple and gold knows that if you win the AP title you get to raise a national championship banner and nobody can say jack about it.

I agree man. Look at all the negative crap that he's put out against LSU. Take for example that billboard with their mascot in a dress. Yost claims that he knows it's only a few idiots doing that One-peat think down there, but degrades their entire fanbase by photoshopping that billboard. Loyalties? It's clear he has a bias against LSU, when it's clearly not their fault (but a few fans being stupid) and takes every opportunity to stand up for the "mighty" trojans. In a word...pathetic.

Onepeat guys stick to truth supported by facts?LSU fans put up a site with reasonable arguments about 2003? Encourage USC fans to participate?

If I recall correctly, the website was designed to put an incindiary billboard near the USC campus; the only participation requested by USC fans was a donation to the cause. The "truth" put forth on onepeat is actually an opinion presented as fact, and as such was not substantiated by footnotes or source links. Onepeatbog, albeit satirically*, cites facts taken from the BCS website, as well as multiple sources and links them so one can verify the legitimacy of such claims.

As far as "reasonable arguments" go, the only exchanges I've seen on boards devolve into "We have the crystal football, and you don't, so there!" or something along similar lines. This obsures the issue: USC has the AP trophy, which is equally recognized and respected as the Coaches' trophy. Arguments are futile because you cannot argue with an unreasonable person.

*So you take offense at the stereotype. I've had to sift through posts about the "University of Spoiled Children" and I've learned to live with it. Lighten up and enjoy the humor, already.

So I guess I'll say you...are... 100%... wrong... USC started this... by... not welcoming this billboard thing with open arms. It's all SC's fault. LSU people who support this are Noble Prize winning patron saints of college football.

I could really care less about LSU or USC, but USC did agree with the BCS at the start of the year. The intention of the BCS and those signing up with it was to get a game for the two best teams. That might have happened in 2003, or it might not. Either way there's no question 2 of the 3 best teams played in that game. Winner then is the champion. Same thing happened in 2004. Auburn got left out, but got no credit.

USC criticized the BCS in 2003 for not letting them play in the championship game. Then praised it in 2004 when Auburn, who had a better case than 2003 USC, was left out.

Again, this argument is disingenuous. The schools did not sign any contract with the BCS to state that the BCS game was the be-all-end-all NC game. The BCS was formed to provide a way to get the #1 and #2 teams on the field at the end of the season in order to prevent split champions who end the season never playing each other.

The split championships remain a possibility because two organizations (The Associated Press and the Coaches polls) each award a universally recognized NC trophy, and the decisions are independent. The coaches are contractually bound to vote for the winner of the BCS championship game, but the AP can continue to vote its champion as it has done in the past.

At the end of the 2003 regular season, both AP and Coaches polls listed USC at #1. The computer algorithms used by the BCS ranked OU at #1 and LSU at #2. Therefore, the consensus #1 team in the nation was left out of the BCS NC game. However, the #1 team in the nation beat the #4 team in the Rose Bowl, and the AP, following precedent, maintained that the #1 team that won its bowl game retained its ranking and earned the AP NC title.

This is why we had a split championship in 2003. The situation was not unprecedented, nor was it agreed upon that one championship trumps the other.

The argument about Auburn in 2004 has many parallels to the 2003 controversy, but again the crucial details are the ones that set the situation apart.1) Auburn, while undefeated, was ranked #3 by both the Coaches and AP at the end of the regular season.2) The BCS (after, I might add, reworking their algorithms to prevent the obvious mistake of 2003) selected USC and OU to play in the championship game. Incidentally, USC and OU were ranked #1 and #2 in both polls respectively.3) At the end of the game, both polls voted USC as the NC. Since USC won both the Coaches (BCS) trophy and the AP trophy, they were deemed the undisputed national champions.

I will be the first to admit that Auburn got a raw deal. That's a problem with the system, and a playoff would have negated that controversy (as it would have in 2003). There's no question in my mind that Auburn would've presented more of a challenge to USC than OU. But at the end of the season, both polls ranked the same team #1, and that was USC.

Follow the MZone

Subscribe To

The MZone-slash-MichiganZone.net-slash-MichiganZone.blogspot.com is in no way affiliated with the University of Michigan and/or U-M football in any way. If you thought it was, frankly I'm surprised you know how to use a computer.